posted at 7:21 pm on April 30, 2013 by Allahpundit

I mentioned this in the earlier Syria post but it’s worth repeating in light of WaPo’s bombshell this afternoon. A quote from this weekend’s NYT: “Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.”

President Obama is preparing to send lethal weaponry to the Syrian opposition and has taken steps to assert more aggressive U.S. leadership among allies and partners seeking the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad, according to senior administration officials.

The officials emphasized that political negotiation remains the preferred option. To that end, the administration has launched a new effort to convince Russian President Vladimir Putin that the probable use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government — and the more direct outside intervention that could provoke — should lead him to reconsider his support of Assad…

[T]he senior official, one of several who discussed internal administration deliberations on the condition of anonymity, said Obama has “not closed the door to other military actions,” in response to calls from the opposition, and some members of Congress, for protection against Syrian ballistic missiles and air attacks…

Disputes among [allied] countries, particularly between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, over which rebel military faction to back has led to rising U.S. concern that sophisticated weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, are being sent directly to Islamist extremist groups. The administration is not prepared to send missiles itself, but believes it can gain more control over others’ supplies if it puts what an official called “more skin in the game” by sending its own lethal equipment.

We’re going to limit the supply of weapons by adding our own weapons? I.e. because we’re sending antitank munitions, say, the Saudis are going to stop sending them SAMs? I’m … highly skeptical that that’s true since Sunni powers in the region are now jockeying for influence over whatever degenerate Islamist faction ultimately ends up on top after Assad is gone. The best way to increase their leverage is to give the rebels the weapons they ask for. If they want SAMs, it’s SAMs they’ll get. And if America’s kicking in too, so much the better for the Saudis et al. — it means the final rebel victory and the ascendance of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is that much closer to happening.

Explain something to me. How did we get from “Assad’s chemical weapons must be confiscated” to “we must arm Assad’s opponents”? The big takeaway from today’s presser was that Obama himself wouldn’t commit to the idea that it was Assad rather than the rebels who are responsible for the previous chemical incidents in Syria. The only way to get from point A, i.e. WMD disarmament, to point B, i.e. regime change, is if the Pentagon’s concluded that there’s no way to confiscate Assad’s chemical arsenal with U.S. or Jordanian troops. The only way is to make a deal with the rebels that we’ll give them conventional weapons now in return for them giving us Assad’s chemical weapons later once they’ve taken over. You trust them to honor a deal like that, don’t you? Meanwhile, with the U.S. finally wading in against him, there’s arguably less deterring Assad from going full chemical now than there was yesterday. This is obviously punishment for him having allegedly crossed the “red line.” No reason not to cross it again, at least on a small scale.

Shotguns are okay for us per Biden and Clinton, but the terro, er, freedom fighters deserve better…..maybe, say a dozen or so Abrams and a couple dozen more Bradleys for good measure for them and scads of small arms, ammo and camo bdus to accessorize.

Its all good, these are surplus materials anyway….they’d just be rusting or rotting away in some scrapyard or warehouse.

The time has come for us to leave Muslim countries to their own devices. If they wish to civilize, I wish them all the best.

We tried supporting dictators and that didn’t work. We tried supporting democracy, that didn’t work. We tried nation building, and that didn’t work.

Homer Simpson summed it up precisely: We tried our best and failed miserably.

The lesson is: ‘Never try.’

Not caring about what happens in the Muslim world is a cathartic and liberating experience. You should try it.

If a country can’t protect our embassy, the answer is to close the embassy. If a country takes $1 billion of our dollars, and then returns the favor by indicting our citizens for religious “crimes”, then stop giving them money.

If the Muslim world wishes to join the 21st century, I wish them all the luck in the world.

But if they don’t? It’s not my problem. I just don’t care anymore.

I don’t care about nation building in Afghanistan anymore. I don’t care about the Muslim Brotherhood being in power in Egypt anymore. Let al Qaeda take over Tunisia. I. Just. Don’t. Care.

Our foreign policy towards the Muslim world should simply be this:

Leave us the f*ck alone, if you don’t we will utterly annihilate you. We will not invade. We will not depose. We will not nation build. We will destroy.

And if after being destroyed you choose to f*ck with us again, we will destroy you again. Until either you stop f*cking with us or you are all dead.

The nuclear option is on the table.

We will put no more American lives at risk to give you freedom. American freedom was won by American blood. Afghan freedom will be won by Afghan blood. Iraqi freedom will be won by Iraqi blood. Etc.

More American blood and treasure wasted on people who are MAD WITH BLOOD LUST.

It makes me sick to contemplate it.

I’m beginning to wonder if this entire debacle in the Middle East isn’t really aimed at ‘redistribution of wealth’ since it now appears that we are actually backing those who commit the terrorist atrocities against which we moved to wage a ‘war on terror’.

How many trillions of dollars have we spent, to date, in that arena of madness? It’s like we just opened up the spigot and let the cash flow…to places we never would have dedicated that much cash under any other circumstance than war.

Ofcourse , jihadies around the world deserve the best weapons and ammunitions Amrican taxpayer money can provide for them .
To do otherwise would be islamophobic.
Amd Hussein and Holder anin’t no islamophobes :O

I’m beginning to wonder if this entire debacle in the Middle East isn’t really aimed at ‘redistribution of wealth’ since it now appears that we are actually backing those who commit the terrorist atrocities against which we moved to wage a ‘war on terror’.

How many trillions of dollars have we spent, to date, in that arena of madness? It’s like we just opened up the spigot and let the cash flow…to places we never would have dedicated that much cash under any other circumstance than war.

Now we can add Syria to that rapidly lengthening list.

thatsafactjack on April 30, 2013 at 7:44 PM

“Mutually assured economic destruction.” L2G could talk about that one. And agreed — Global Warming Climate Change, so much of this — moving around the ducats.

The only way is to make a deal with the rebels that we’ll give them conventional weapons now in return for them giving us Assad’s chemical weapons later once they’ve taken over. You trust them to honor a deal like that, don’t you?

Sure they will. Barry only dabbles in “Smart Diplomacy”. It worked out so well in Egypt and Tunisia.

Can we contact the British Embassy in DC, have them make a request of Queen Elizabeth…ask her to announce that Obama, if he tries to arm the jihadis, will be granted a British Knighthood or some other bauble and ribbon for his Valor.

Obama will stop this arming Syria nonsense in a New York minute…hates the Brits so much…

“The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

A quip which demonstrated that he is either- a traitorous Quisling or- simply non compos mentis.

profitsbeard on May 1, 2013 at 2:49 AM

Or more cunning than we thought, because in order to slander somebody your spoken statements about somebody must disparage them and be false.

Reporting that “the Prophet of Islam” had penetrative sex with a small girl, acted vindictively, was ignorant, violent and deceitful isn’t slander, because to the best of all available knowledge it’s the truth.

In order to slander the Barbarian of Arabia you’d have to accuse him of some wickedness he never did … cheating at cards, or riding his camel recklessly the wrong way along a one-way dune, perhaps?